sola virtus invicta

hate speech

Although no fan of Katie Hopkins, I do have sympathy with some of her views for the simple reason that she happens to be correct, sometimes. Take the latest scandal surrounding one of Hopkins’ provocative tweets which she was forced to delete following a typical onslaught by the usual virtue-signalling do-gooders’ failure to understand that ‘anti-racism’ is a code word for ‘anti-white’ :

(For the sake of argument, here I’m referring to Hopkins’ own words and not the TV series Dear White People).

Lebanese-born Dom Joly is a comedian which perhaps partly explains his outrage. Maybe he was just trying to be funny? Sadly, no. Joly believes that in Britain blacks suffer far more discrimination than whites. His outburst would appear to suggest that whites – and in this particular case, Hopkins – are more racist than any other race simply because of the colour of their skin. In which case, doesn’t that make Joly just as ‘racist’ as Hopkins?

Moreover, despite the implied meaning of Hopkins’ tweet being wholly justified, Joly provides no counter evidence whatsoever, preferring instead to slate Hopkins as an evil racist who has no right to exist, in full glare of his 220k Twitter followers. If Hopkins said Joly had no right to exist, she’d be accused of hate speech.

Is Joly in some twisted way really suggesting that indisputable statistics relating to black on black violent crime would somehow be further proof of whites discriminating against blacks?

Poor black people have suffered sooooo terribly and have been sooooo oppressed by evil, colonising whites that we must never blame blacks for continually beating and killing each other – it’s not their fault. Whites are the guilty ones! Just look at history!

Cue the Leftist Liberal segment of British society shrivelling yet again under the huge weight of white guilt imposed, this time, by a non-white stand-up comic. These virtue signallers then sing the praises of the latter whilst patting themselves on the back as Hopkins is forced to pull her opinion from public view.

As Hopkins’ deletion shows, speaking the truth is now a potential hate crime. Likewise and without exception, the main ‘anti-racist’ organisations in the UK are doing all they can to set legal precedents which will ensure that, in future, ethnic white Brits will be harshly punished for thinking aloud and stating verifiable fact.

Who are the people behind these ‘anti-racism’ organisations? I’ve already written about Fiyaz Mughal – former director of Islamophobia monitoring organisation Tell Mama – here. Suffice it to say that as well as trying to screw ordinary Brits, Tell Mama also does its best to mess with members of the very same community it claims to represent. With former CST Chairman Richard Benson as president, the fact that so many British Muslims have such little faith in Tell Mama is no real surprise.

Leaving aside Jewish lobbying group CST and militant wing CAA for the moment, I would like to concentrate on another ‘anti-racist’ organisation, Nick Lowles’ Hope Not Hate.

As well as functioning as a registered charity which receives government funding, Hope Not Hate is also a company whose directors include snivelling ex-Bicom Labour MP, Ruth Smeeth. Lowles and Smeeth are both perfect examples of the utter hypocrisy of such organisations which exalt the ideologies of multiculturalism and equality whilst keeping their professional interests strictly within their own kosher network.

Last month, the entire website archives of Hope Not Hate were wiped and, despite search results still appearing on Google, all past links now lead to 404s. Where, oh where have all Matt Collins‘ smear blogs gone?! Down the pan, along with Hope Not Hate’s ‘charitable’ status?

Does this wiping of years’ worth of archives have something to do with Lowles’ announcement also last month of his intention to sue Nigel Farage for a comment made on LBC radio last December? In response to a tweet by Brendan Cox (widower of murdered MP Jo Cox) describing Farage as an ‘extremist’, Farage said that Cox would know all about extremism because of his links with Hope Not Hate, an organisation which uses undemocratic tactics against its political enemies.

At the time, Lowles used his influence to persuade The Guardian to publish a whole swathe of articles condemning Farage from the likes of Owen Jones and, err, himself. Lowles’ piece trumpets ‘a huge response’ to his plea for donations required to serve justice on the despicable and hateful Farage. Five months on: Lowles re-launches Hope Hot Hate’s website, re-launches his intention to sue Farage and re-launches an appeal asking for £100,000 – also via The Guardian. On the original donation page from last December, a disclaimer reads that, in the eventuality of any settlement outside court, donated funds will be put to further good use battling hatred. If there was already a huge response last December, where’s the money now and why the need to set up a new fund?

And what about Brendan Cox’s role in all this? The last time I checked, the Jo Cox Fund had already overreached its target by almost £500,000 and the money is still flooding in. As Hope Not Hate is one of the fund’s main beneficiaries, why can’t Lowles dip into his part of the surplus – let alone into his part of the official target sum of £1.5m? Are Lowles and Cox taking the good-natured British public for a ride?

Perhaps afraid of pending legal consequences relating to his own organisation’s despicable record on targeting political enemies, Lowles should heed a similar case brought by Mughal against The Telegraph after columnist Andrew Gilligan also used the word ‘extremist’ in one of his articles to describe the then director of Tell Mama. Mughal lost his case, no doubt resulting in impending financial disaster for Tell Mama, thereafter heroically saved by the ensuing knight-in-shining-shekels arrival on the scene of Richard Benson.

Hope Not Hate’s dubious methods of trying to shame their political opponents into silence is common knowledge. Furthermore, Nigel Farage was criticising an organisation, not an individual.

Hope Not Hate’s blog post, written by senior researcher Joe Mulhall (like Mughal, also a trustee at the Holocaust Memorial Day Trust) describes Kollerstrom as one of Britain’s ‘leading Holocaust deniers‘. In what way is last night’s attack – where an 80-year old attendee was injured – linked to last February’s similar assault at a London Forum meeting in Kensington? Is there any significance to the fact that the wiping of Hope Not Hate’s archives seems to coincide with Lowles now specifically targeting those associated with British nationalist intelligentsia and Jez Turner‘s London Forum? If so, then last night’s call out to Antifa gang thugs was surely a step too far?

‘Anti-hate’ groups which purport to uphold democratic values whilst behaving in direct opposition to such claims should be investigated – especially those masquerading as registered charities. These organisations’ main target is of course nationalism, which must not, at any cost, be allowed to flourish. ‘As we all know‘, pontificate Lowles, Cox, Mughal, Joly and an army of virtue-signalling leftist liberals, ‘Nationalism leads to death by insecticide poisoning on an industrial scale in gas chambers. Nationalism is the devil incarnate and those who partake must be burned at the stake – or at least executed socially and professionally. We will shut you down and burn all your books in the name of, err, anti-fascism.’

Don’t back the wrong horse and please don’t give your hard-earned money to traitorous scum who’ve grown rich and fat playing victim whilst tendering a begging bowl. True patriotic nationalism transcends any traditional concept of Left-Right political ideology. The primary aim of organisations such as Hope Not Hate, aided and abetted by the corrupt creeps currently in power at Westminster, is to banish any nationalistic notion from the public psyche in the name of multicultural diversity, globalism and the status quo.

Rather than continuing to subscribe to failed dogma, it would be far more productive to write letters of complaint to the Charity Commission and to your MP. Even better, check out local nationalist groups and see what’s happening in your area. And if you really want to annoy the likes of Lowles and his Soros-funded Antifa thug cronies, come along to the next meeting of the London Forum.

There is one event in our history which appears to be off-limits to discuss, debate, ask questions, investigate, or ask for evidence. That event is the so-called “Holocaustᵀᴹ”. It has become a belief system, and if you dare to speak something contrary to this belief system, beware! You may encounter “ritual defamation”. You may be viewed as a heretic. Facts become irrelevant; the main objective is that you are punished severely for going against the stream. I have been experiencing ritual defamation in my home town of Jasper, Canada, population 5000. I am the perfect candidate for defamation, in that I have lived here most of my life and have been an active community member, which makes me locally well-known. Some of the elements of ritual defamation are shunning, ostrasizing, shaming, cutting off income, and character assassination.

A strange type of response that I get from many people, is that this topic of #Holocaustᵀᴹ is “off limits” for them, even if they tell me they respect my right to freedom of speech. They tell me outright that they will not discuss or debate this issue, end of story. They refuse to look at any evidence, book, video, or hear any argument from me about why and how I have reached my conclusions. Is this reasonable? Is there any other part of our history which is treated in this way? The unique hold of the #Holocaustᵀᴹ narrative on people’s psyche is what causes me to view it as the new religion of the masses.

Recently I was invited by the Canadian Association for Free Expression to go to Toronto to speak about my experience – how I came to my conclusions on the #Holocaustᵀᴹ , and the aftermath of posting my “Sorry Mom, I was wrong about the #Holocaustᵀᴹ” video. There I met many people with interesting stories of their own, for example, there were several expellees from the eastern former territories of Germany.

Millions of Germans were expelled from those eastern European lands at the end of the war in 1945 in the largest forced migration in all of recorded history. Many were put into camps. It is estimated that 3 million died along the way, either of exposure, starvation, or outright murder. Many were raped and tortured. Where are the monuments to those victims? And why is this part of our history omitted or barely mentioned in school? I certainly never knew about it until very recently. But I do remember learning in school about the evil Germans making soap, lampshades and shrunken heads out of the bodies of Jews, all admitted and proven lies. It has become perfectly acceptable in our society to denigrate the religions of Christianity or Islam, but going against “the #Holocaustᵀᴹ ” has severe consequences, including incarceration. Many European countries have laws which make peaceful expression against the official narrative of the #Holocaustᵀᴹ illegal. Canada does not have explicit laws against “#Holocaustᵀᴹ denial”, but Ernst Zundel was jailed for just that under the notorious hate-speech laws, so in effect, it is illegal to deny the holocaust in Canada. Only lies need to be protected by laws. The truth stands on its own. Is it not possible to have open debate on the #Holocaustᵀᴹ? What are they hiding?

FREEDOM OF SPEECH IN CANADA IS UNDER ATTACK! CANADIAN PUBLISHER FACING JAIL FOR POLITICAL WRITINGS NOW PURSUING A CONSTITUTIONAL CHALLENGE TO CANADA’S NOTORIOUS “HATE PROPAGANDA” LEGISLATION!

An extremely important court case is coming up soon. Arthur Topham, publisher of radicalpress.com “digging to the root of the issues since 1998”, will be in the Quesnel Court during the week of October 3 to 7, 2016. This case to repeal the Orwellian hate-speech laws is important for all of us, for our freedom of speech. Who decides what is “hate” speech? If we are only free to express politically correct views, then we do not have freedom of speech, period. Without freedom of speech, we do not have a functioning democracy. Instead, we have tyranny.